That's right kids, our new all-terror, all-the-time blog has arrived. And in the spirit of Jack Handy, I say, 'Let's have fun with this.'
Not only will there be encyclopedic listings of the day's Terror news here, but we have special features, too. For starters, check out the competing tallies for victims killed by Muslim and Christian terrorists since the blog's inception.
Each Friday we'll be awarding the Jimmy Carter Peace Prize to the lucky organization which racked up the highest body count that week. Will it be Abu Sayyaf, Al-Qaeda, or a militant Christian group like the Salvation Army or the Knights of Columbus? The anticipation is brutal!
Once things get going we'll be organizing a weekly Carnival of Carnage as a way to highlight WOT and Milblogs.
If you have any suggestions for improving the look or content here, or an idea for a new special feature, please drop me an email: discoshaman -at- gmail.com
Hey, love the new digs! Gotta update my blogroll, now, 'cuz this needs to get linked. A lot.
*LOVIN* the "killed by Christian terrorists" count. Won't be funny if it ever reads anything but zero, though. Tough to be held to a standard like that. Much easier to be the zillionth act of violence committed in the name of a religion of conquest.
Oops, sorry, I meant "peace."
Say, both Le Sabot and this place have a minor format glitch, but it's more noticeable, here. Your headline for you content area in the center has somehow been positioned overlapping the banner. If I had to guess, I'd bet it's an IE/Firefox difference in handling margins/padding that did it, but it could be something else.
Yup, it is. Also, you mixed positioning styles when you set up your columns, which makes it easy to get little glitches. However, if you'll change your stylesheet to read as follows for ROP, you'll fix the problem:
#banner {
height: 160px;
background: #CDC673;
border: 1px solid #CDC673;
}
html>body #banner {
height: 160px;
}
You were putting a 160px tall picture in a space described as 100 or 99px tall. IE just ignores what you say and sticks stuff up there. Mozilla based stuff tries to do what you say.
For Le Sabot, same change, only to 165, should do it.
Also, in the comments box I'm typing in now, the headlines are black on very dark blue. Hard to see the writing. Can you ease back the blue just a tad, or use light text?
Cheers,
PGE
Yeah. . . Hubby knows about the Firefox thing. That's my browser of choice. We have "his and hers" browsers around here. *grin*
Thanks for the coding tips. This is allllll way beyond me.
Posted by: TulipGirl at November 14, 2005 03:36 PMYou counting the Russian "troops" in Chechnya over there on the right?
Serious question. Remember who I work for, I don't know a terrorist from a bomb crater or any other hole in the ground.
No, but seriously, it's an earnest question.
Posted by: The Liberal Media at November 14, 2005 07:07 PMPG-
THANKS. You have no idea how much I needed help with this. I use coding the way a feminist uses statstics. . .
LIB-
I'm not including the Russians at all. Nor, on the other hand, am I including any victims killed by Chechens in legitimate military action.
This isn't a 'victims killed by members of a particular religion' tally. We're speaking of a specific sort of tactic. And the second prereq is that it has to be done specifically in the name of that religion. If the Russians were shouting Jesus Ackbar! while killing the Chechens I think your idea would have more merit. :)
Do you think this idea of keeping a tally adds to the glorification of the Muslim tactic? They are about 'maximum damage.'
From today's Sydney Morning Herald:
‘Case against the Sydney accused,’ SMH November 15, 2005
Police also recorded another of the eight, Khaled Sharrouf, 24, telling the radical cleric Abdul Nacer Benbrika: "I want to die." Benbrika, who was one of the men arrested in Melbourne, allegedly replied: "If we want to die for jihad, we have to have maximum damage. Maximum damage. Damage their buildings, everything. Damage their lives. To show them … we'll have to be careful."
Miss-
Hi, pal.
"Do you think this idea of keeping a tally adds to the glorification of the Muslim tactic? They are about 'maximum damage.'"
I actually gave some thought to the issue before putting up the tally. There are basically four reasons I settled on it:
1. My approach to blogging is summed up in the motto 'fear and whimsy.' The tally has both elements.
2. Americans aren't quailed by the deaths of innocents. We're ticked off by it. Ask Tojo for confirmation of this. There ARE plenty of Nancy-Americans who lose heart at military casualties, but dead civilians only strengthens our resolve as a nation.
3. This is a response to the implied moral equivalency people try to draw between the US and Islamism or Christianity and Islam. Examples would be Sen. Dick Durbin comparing us to Nazis, for instance. Or when people try to equate conservative Christians with the Taliban. The numbers show the fatuous nature of such statements in black and white.
4. If 'moderate' Muslims are capable of shame, which seems less likely with each passing year, then perhaps this will shame them. Christianity polices itself, ostracizing extremists like the Christian Identity movement to the point where it would never occur to us to treat them as fellow believers in Christ. Opinion polls show that vast swaths of 'moderate' Muslims sympathize with the terrorists. Jesus said we can know a tree by its fruit. So let the world see what the fruit of their religion is proving to be.
Posted by: Discoshaman at November 14, 2005 11:36 PM
Thankyou Discoshaman. It is always nice to know where you're coming from. Let's just hope and pray the tally does not rise on either side.
Posted by: missmellifluous at November 15, 2005 12:12 AMnp. Probably couldn't have helped with the comments thing, least not without being on site and tinkering for a while, but I try to keep up on how to do clean CSS.
Cheers,
Computer Science drop-out turned English teacher
PGE